J. K. Rowling is cancelled because she is a T.E.R.F [ADMIN WARNING IN POST #1]

RWCNT

PreparationH wrote: »

Why is it when anyone says anything against the those who openly hate us and actively want to destroy our lives because their precious feelings are hurt, that person has a "chip on his shoulder"?


Cast a slur, ignore what's being said and attempt to impress those around you? Is that it?

I didn't suggest that you have a chip on your shoulder because you've said anything against anyone. I suggested you have a chip on your shoulder because you're getting all hysterical over a word that you've decided is a slur, claiming that it's use marginalises you and that it was made by people that hate you because of your immutable characteristics "based on their own self loathing".

And now you're talking about people wanting to destroy your life. It's less a chip than a 10kg bag of spuds at this stage.

suicide_circus

"'Cisgender' was coined in academic journal articles in the 1990s. It started to gain broader popularity from around 2007 when transgender theorist Julia Serano discussed it in her book Whipping Girl."

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-it-mean-to-be-cisgender-103159

So it's a word fairly recently pushed by a trans activist and peddler of Gender Woo Woo.

Sorry but no. The 99.9% don't require a special word to differentiate themselves from the 0.1%, thanks but no thanks.

RWCNT

suicide_circus wrote: »

"'Cisgender' was coined in academic journal articles in the 1990s. It started to gain broader popularity from around 2007 when transgender theorist Julia Serano discussed it in her book Whipping Girl."

https://theconversation.com/explainer-what-does-it-mean-to-be-cisgender-103159

So it's a word fairly recently pushed by a trans activist and peddler of Gender Woo Woo.

Sorry but no. The 99.9% don't require a special word to differentiate themselves from the 0.1%, thanks but no thanks.

You do get terms used by people in certain communities that apply to people outside those communities who actually represent the overwhelming majority of people. I ended up watching a vid on youtube the other night by a blind person and she frequently used the term "sighted people" which I'd not come across before.

I agree with you that it's not particularly useful, I don't see a benefit in confusing people with strange new words, particularly in relation to a subject that's going to be a hard sell for a lot of people at the best times.

PreparationH

suicide_circus wrote: »

Sorry but no. The 99.9% don't require a special word to differentiate themselves from the 0.1%, thanks but no thanks.

This


+1

Gentlemanne

cis is to trans is just what straight is to gay.

I notice that a lot of people that feel attacked by the term are constantly antagonistic to trans people, so maye the response they get from these views might create a feeling of victimization. But that doesn't mean its a slur. That is absurd.

RWCNT wrote: »

I ended up watching a vid on youtube the other night by a blind person and she frequently used the term "sighted people" which I'd not come across before

Yes, exactly, there are useful terms marginalised people use to differentiate themselves from others. Now you're getting it!!

Gentlemanne

suicide_circus wrote: »

The 99.9% don't require a special word to differentiate themselves from the 0.1%, thanks but no thanks.

Why not?

I have a medical condition that affects 1 in 200'000 people. We have a facebook group for it, and we have a term for people who don't have the condition. It's useful when discussing our lives.

I guess being a super minority makes our condition not real, what a relief.

PreparationH

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Yes, exactly, there are useful terms marginalised people use to differentiate themselves from others. Now you're getting it!!

Is it useful when the people you are using it on tell you it's deeply offensive and they ask you stop? Is it still useful then?

RWCNT

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Why not?

I have a medical condition that affects 1 in 200'000 people. We have a facebook group for it, and we have a term for people who don't have the condition. It's useful when discussing our lives.

I guess being a super minority makes our condition not real, what a relief.

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Yes, exactly, there are useful terms marginalised people use to differentiate themselves from others. Now you're getting it!!

Totally get it - my comment about it's usefulness was in relation to communicating ideas to a wider audience.

Neyite

How about everyone just uses everyone's preferred pronouns? Isn't that just manners, and being respectful?

If you are Elizabeth by birth, but hate the nickname Liz, so you ask people to call you Betty, someone who continues to use Liz instead of Betty is deliberately being rude to you, and trying to offend you. Another woman might hate the nickname Betty so wants to be called Liz, ditto. Is one variant of a nickname 'offensive' to all Elizabeths? No. It's a personal preference, so if you aren't a dick, you should use the name the person prefers.

If someone tells you they don't like the word Cis when it's used to refer to them or that they feel it doesn't fit with their view of their authentic self, you don't get to override or dictate their personal preferences about their pronouns, particularly if you yourself are particular about YOUR pronouns and want people to use your preferred ones.

It works both ways.

Sir Oxman

Gentlemanne wrote: »

I notice that a lot of people that feel attacked by the term are constantly antagonistic to trans people,

Antagonistic to activist absolutist stupidity.

PreparationH

Neyite wrote: »

How about everyone just uses everyone's preferred pronouns? Isn't that just manners, and being respectful?

If you are Elizabeth by birth, but hate the nickname Liz, so you ask people to call you Betty, someone who continues to use Liz instead of Betty is deliberately being rude to you, and trying to offend you. Another woman might hate the nickname Betty so wants to be called Liz, ditto. Is one variant of a nickname 'offensive' to all Elizabeths? No. It's a personal preference, so if you aren't a dick, you should use the name the person prefers.

If someone tells you they don't like the word Cis when it's used to refer to them or that they feel it doesn't fit with their view of their authentic self, you don't get to override or dictate their personal preferences about their pronouns, particularly if you yourself are particular about YOUR pronouns and want people to use your preferred ones.

It works both ways.

`
Or we could just use Male and Female pronouns, because that's what we are, male or female.

RWCNT

Neyite wrote: »

How about everyone just uses everyone's preferred pronouns? Isn't that just manners, and being respectful?

If you are Elizabeth by birth, but hate the nickname Liz, so you ask people to call you Betty, someone who continues to use Liz instead of Betty is deliberately being rude to you, and trying to offend you. Another woman might hate the nickname Betty so wants to be called Liz, ditto. Is one variant of a nickname 'offensive' to all Elizabeths? No. It's a personal preference, so if you aren't a dick, you should use the name the person prefers.

If someone tells you they don't like the word Cis when it's used to refer to them or that they feel it doesn't fit with their view of their authentic self, you don't get to override or dictate their personal preferences about their pronouns, particularly if you yourself are particular about YOUR pronouns and want people to use your preferred ones.

It works both ways.

I see what you're getting at, but a descriptor that refers to the majority of people on the planet and one person's pronouns aren't analagous.

A poster suggested earlier that its a hateful slur that shouldn't be said, ever - despite the lack of consensus supporting this amongst the people it describes.

Say I'm annoyed with people saying "straight white males" in a pejorative manner on twitter. I decide that "white" is now a hateful offensive slur that should never be said, ever - it's a label used by people who hate me and want to ruin my life, and it's inaccurate as I'm more a pinky colour anyway. Maybe some people will oblige me and not refer to me as white in conversation, but its thoroughly unreasonable of me to expect people to stop using a descriptor because I've decided for myself, wrongly, that it's a slur.

suicide_circus

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Why not?

I have a medical condition that affects 1 in 200'000 people. We have a facebook group for it, and we have a term for people who don't have the condition. It's useful when discussing our lives.

I guess being a super minority makes our condition not real, what a relief.

Sure your condition is real, no need for the dramatics. And if you have specific nomenclature within your "community" thats fine. But "cis" has been shoehorned into the mainstream so that it's an everyday descriptor expected to be used when not even referencing trans people. I'm not engaging with it.

sabat

Neyite wrote: »

How about everyone just uses everyone's preferred pronouns? Isn't that just manners, and being respectful?

When did people begin having "ownership" of their pronouns? I would posit that they belong to the language itself. Here's an example of this egotism making comprehension more difficult:

"Penny was born in Westminster, the child of Jane (née Penny) and Ray Barnett, a lawyer.[1][2] They are of Irish, Jewish, and Maltese descent,[3][4][5] and have described themself as an "atheist child of a lapsed Jew and a lapsed Catholic".[6] They grew up in Brighton[7][8] and Lewes,[9] attending the independent school Brighton College with a scholarship.[7][10] As a teenager they suffered from anorexia and was hospitalised at age 17, subsequently making a recovery."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Penny

Neyite

RWCNT wrote: »

I see what you're getting at, but a descriptor that refers to the majority of people on the planet and one person's pronouns aren't analagous.

A poster suggested earlier that its a hateful slur that shouldn't be said, ever - despite the lack of consensus supporting this amongst the people it describes.

Say I'm annoyed with people saying "straight white males" in a pejorative manner on twitter. I decide that "white" is now a hateful offensive slur that should never be said, ever - it's a label used by people who hate me and want to ruin my life, and it's inaccurate as I'm more a pinky colour anyway. Maybe some people will oblige me and not refer to me as white in conversation, but its thoroughly unreasonable of me to expect people to stop using a descriptor because I've decided for myself, wrongly, that it's a slur.

Cis doesn't refer to the majority of the people on the planet unless it's in a discussion about trans issues.

In any other area of everything in life, it's male / female. Toilets, hospital wards, clothing departments, don't use the word Cis. Anne Doyle doesn't say on the news that a Cis-man has been arrested, or that a Cis woman was killed in an RTA. I have a woman's shoe size, not a Cis woman's shoe size. I am a women's size 10. etc.

Cis is not used in everyday language -except when people want to discuss the sexes in relation to trans people. So if someone feels that being called Cis feels wrong on them or doesn't fit with their version of self, they've every right to feel that way and you don't get to override their preferences on that -whatever your justification is - not if you want that same respectful usage of language back.

RWCNT

Neyite wrote: »

Cis doesn't refer to the majority of the people on the planet unless it's in a discussion about trans issues.

In any other area of everything in life, it's male / female. Toilets, hospital wards, clothing departments, don't use the word Cis. Anne Doyle doesn't say on the news that a Cis-man has been arrested, or that a Cis woman was killed in an RTA. I have a woman's shoe size, not a Cis woman's shoe size. I am a women's size 10. etc.

Cis is not used in everyday language -except when people want to discuss the sexes in relation to trans people.

I agree with all of that, I'm talking about when discussing trans issues, such as in this thread. I get annoyed myself when people shoehorn irrelevant descriptors into conversations.

Neyite wrote:

So if someone feels that being called Cis feels wrong on them or doesn't fit with their version of self, they've every right to feel that way and you don't get to override their preferences on that -whatever your justification is - not if you want that same respectful usage of language back.

And what about if that person is discussing trans issues? And the person in question is not asking just for the term to not to be applied to themselves specifically, but for it to not be used ever? Refer to my hypothetical about if I decide "white" is a hateful slur.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

Neyite wrote: »

How about everyone just uses everyone's preferred pronouns? Isn't that just manners, and being respectful?

I hear ya. Though the preferred pronouns thing does confuse me a bit. If somebody is talking to me, I'd be amazing if they called me anything but my name or 'you'. I guess there are instances where I've been mentioned to somebody else whilst I'm standing there. Usually my name would be used in those cases too though. Maybe 'she' the odd time. But the whole 'proper pronouns' thing is kinda an attempt to control conversation when the person isn't even there. I don't know about anyone else but I don't care about how I'm referred to when I'm not present.

Neyite

sabat wrote: »

When did people begin having "ownership" of their pronouns? I would posit that they belong to the language itself. Here's an example of this egotism making comprehension more difficult:

"Penny was born in Westminster, the child of Jane (née Penny) and Ray Barnett, a lawyer.[1][2] They are of Irish, Jewish, and Maltese descent,[3][4][5] and have described themself as an "atheist child of a lapsed Jew and a lapsed Catholic".[6] They grew up in Brighton[7][8] and Lewes,[9] attending the independent school Brighton College with a scholarship.[7][10] As a teenager they suffered from anorexia and was hospitalised at age 17, subsequently making a recovery."

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laurie_Penny

I honestly could not tell you when 'ownership' of pronouns started, but I would imagine it began when people wanted to be referred to with a certain pronoun? However, the page you linked also states:

"Penny came out as a genderqueer woman in 2015.[36] In 2020, Penny stated that their preferred pronouns are they/them and that they consider the pronouns she/her to be "less accurate", but acceptable to use when referring to them.[37]"

So Penny has cleared up any potential confusion in this instance. Someone who is respectful will use Penny's preferences. Someone who wants to hurt or insult them, will not. If I deliberately called Penny Cis, that would be a slur as far as they are concerned I imagine.

I feel that calling someone Cis without their prior agreement is rude. It's making an assumption on their preferred pronoun. Similar to if you refer to a married woman as Mrs. HisSurname when she chooses to go by Mrs. MaidenName. The first time is accidental, the second and subsequent time you do it, you are being deliberately provocative.

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts

RWCNT wrote: »

And what about if that person is discussing trans issues?

What about it? Transgender woman. Woman. Transgender man. Man. This is very clear to me personally.

Neyite

RWCNT wrote: »

I agree with all of that, I'm talking about when discussing trans issues, such as in this thread. I get annoyed myself when people shoehorn irrelevant descriptors into conversations.

And what about if that person is discussing trans issues? And the person in question is not asking just for the term to not to be applied to themselves specifically, but for it to not be used ever? Refer to my hypothetical about if I decide "white" is a hateful slur.

Race, hmm... You can't 'feel' you are a different race. Rachel Dolzen tried that and was pilloried. You are who you are racially and your appearance can be adapted however you like but you racially cannot change. Michael Jackson is a perfect example. In later years he would be taken for a white male by his appearance due to a medical condition but his early photos and his family clearly indicate he was African American.



How about using Women /Men? It's already a universally perfect way to describe people who are not transgender, we've been using it for millennia, and every language in the world already has it and it won't offend the small majority of people who feel the word cis is pejorative. Just use Women /Men/ Trans Women, Trans men.

RWCNT

Obvious Desperate Breakfasts wrote: »

What about it? Transgender woman. Woman. Transgender man. Man. This is very clear to me personally.

I'm responding to Neyite's point that it's not typically used unless discussing transgender issues. I think it's unreasonable for one person in a large group conversation such as this to expect others to completely refrain from using the term as a descriptor for a group because they've decided that they consider it a hateful slur.

I'm not really a fan of the popularisation of the term, I like plain language that doesn't require explanation.

Gruffalux

Gentlemanne wrote: »

Why not?

I have a medical condition that affects 1 in 200'000 people. We have a facebook group for it, and we have a term for people who don't have the condition. It's useful when discussing our lives.

I guess being a super minority makes our condition not real, what a relief.

That's grand. Thank you for not insisting that the name you have for the people who don't have your condition is forced into common parlance.

Gruffalux

Gentlemanne wrote: »

cis is to trans is just what straight is to gay.

I notice that a lot of people that feel attacked by the term are constantly antagonistic to trans people, so maye the response they get from these views might create a feeling of victimization. But that doesn't mean its a slur. That is absurd.

Oh really?
Cis is not a slur, like TERF is not a slur.

Images below include an art exhibition hosted publicly by a San Francisco Public Library in 2018. Exhibits were produced by a group called The Degenderettes.
The person with Dis Cis Scum in tattoo form is not part of the artistic expression of weapons symbolically intended for especially females who will not roll over.

RWCNT

Neyite wrote: »

Race, hmm... You can't 'feel' you are a different race. Rachel Dolzen tried that and was pilloried. You are who you are racially and your appearance can be adapted however you like but you racially cannot change. Michael Jackson is a perfect example. In later years he would be taken for a white male by his appearance due to a medical condition but his early photos and his family clearly indicate he was African American.



How about using Women /Men? It's already a universally perfect way to describe people who are not transgender, we've been using it for millennia, and every language in the world already has it and it won't offend the small majority of people who feel the word cis is pejorative. Just use Women /Men/ Trans Women, Trans men.

Why are you talking about race?

And sure, that could work. I'm not arguing for the use of the term here. Who are the "small majority" though? I'd venture the majority of people have never heard of the word. When was the poll conducted and why didnt I receive my ballot?

Gruffalox wrote: »

Oh really?
Cis is not a slur, like TERF is not a slur.

Images below include an art exhibition hosted publicly by a San Francisco Public Library in 2018. Exhibits were produced by a group called The Degenderettes.
The person with Dis Cis Scum in tattoo form is not part of the artistic expression of weapons symbolically intended for especially females who will not roll over.

Does this graffiti render the word "Brit" a slur?

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

Why are you talking about race?

And sure, that could work. I'm not arguing for the use of the term here.




Does this graffiti render the word "Brit" a slur?

Yes. People who refer to ''Brits'' are generally slurring them.

RWCNT

Gruffalox wrote: »

Yes. People who refer to ''Brits'' are generally slurring them.

OK. FYI, it's not. I live in Britain. It's not considered offensive in the slightest, unless you say it to a Scottish nationalist!

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

OK. FYI, it's not. I live in Britain. It's not considered offensive in the slightest, unless you say it to a Scottish nationalist!

Well fine. Then use CIS all YOU want. When it comes to me, do not use it.
Consider me a Scottish nationalist for the purposes of CIS. Thanks

RWCNT

Gruffalox wrote: »

Well fine. Then use CIS all YOU want. When it comes to me, do not use it.

I don't really use it, most people don't know what it means and a small amount of people are REALLY tetchy about it for reasons I've never had explained to my satisfaction!

Gruffalux

RWCNT wrote: »

I don't really use it, most people don't know what it means and a small amount of people are REALLY tetchy about it for reasons I've never had explained to my satisfaction!

Well a small amount of people who present as males want me to accept they are indistinguishable from women and can thus access all sex based spaces and conditions, and they get REALLY tetchy about it if i don't accept it in all circumstances, for reasons I have never had explained to my satisfaction.
So, I guess we can at least know each others bewilderment.

By the way you may not use CIS but progressively more and more official institutions do. It is a politically correct attempt to divide the indivisible ontological category of sex (male or female) into sub categories. And it is also a manipulative attempt to force me to speak irrational untruths.

RWCNT

Gruffalox wrote: »

By the way you may not use CIS but progressively more and more official institutions do. It is a politically correct attempt to divide the indivisible ontological category of sex (male or female) into sub categories. And it is also a manipulative attempt to force me to speak irrational untruths.

All sounds a bit tin foil hat.